How Vera Zasulich Demolishes Liquidationism

Published:ProsveshcheniyeNo. 9, September 1913.

      Signed:V. Ilyin.

      Published according to theProsveshcheniyetext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 19,

      pages394-416.Translated:The Late George HannaTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

ZhivayaZhiznNo. 8 (July 19, 1913), carried an
excellent article by Vera Zasulich in defence of liquidationism (“Apropos
of a Certain Question”). We ask all those interested in questions
affecting the working-class movement and democracy to pay careful attention
to this article, which is valuable both because of its contents and because
of the forthrightness of its authoritative author.

Inthe first place, Vera Zasulich, like all liquidators, does her best
to calumniate the Party, but her frankness as a writer exposes her so
clearly that it is amazing. “The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party,”
we read in the article, “is an underground organisation of intellectuals
for propaganda and agitation among the workers, which was founded at the
Second Congress, and which split immediately.” Actually, the Party was
founded in 1898 and based itself on the awakening of a mass working-class
movement in the 1895–96 period. Dozens and hundreds of workers (like the
late Babushkin in St. Petersburg) not only attended lectures at study
circles but as early as 1894–95themselves carried on agitationand then founded workers’ organisations in other cities (the Ekaterinoslav
organisations founded by Babushkin when he was exiled from St. Petersburg,
etc.).

Therelative dominance of intellectuals in the early days of the
movement was to be observed everywhere and not only in Russia. By using
this fact to slander the workers’party, Vera Zasulich crushes liquidationism among all thinking workers who
experienced the agitation and strikes of 1894–96.

“In1903,” writes Vera Zasulich, “the underground
   study circles engaged in this work were united to form a secret society
   with hierarchical rules. It is difficult to say whether the new
   organisation as such helped or hindered current work....”

“In1903,” writes Vera Zasulich, “the underground
   study circles engaged in this work were united to form a secret society
   with hierarchical rules. It is difficult to say whether the new
   organisation as such helped or hindered current work....”

Anyonewho does not wish to be accused of having a short memory, must
know that groups of intellectuals and workers, not only in 1903, but
beginning from 1894 (and in some cases even earlier)helpedboth
in economic and political agitation, in strikes and in propaganda. To
assert publicly that “it is difficult to say whether the new organisation
helped or hindered the work” is not merely stating a tremendous and
obvious historical untruth—it meansrenouncing the Party.

Whatvalue, indeed, can one place on the Party if it is difficult to
say whether it helped or hindered the work? Is it not clear that the
sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath?

Theliquidators have to renounce the Party in retrospect in order to
justify their renunciation of it at the present time.

VeraZasulich, speaking of this present time, the June Third epoch,
says: “I have heard retorts of the district branches of the organisation
losing members....”

Thereis no disputing that fact. The district and all other branches of
the organisation have lost members. The question is one of how this
phenomenon of flight from the organisation is to be explained, what
attitude is to be adopted towards that phenomenon.

VeraZasulich answers: “they lost their members because at that time
there was nothing to do in them.”

Theanswer is definite and may be equated with a definite condemnation
of the underground and justification of flight from it. How does Vera
Zasulich prove her statement?
1) There was nothing for propagandists to do because “many workers had
collected whole libraries” of books published in the days of freedom,
“which the police had not yet succeeded in confiscating”.

VeraZasulich has an interesting knack of not noticing how, she refutes
her own words. If the police were “confiscating” the libraries,it
meansthat discussions on what had been read, the assimilation of it
and further studywas giving riseprecisely to underground work!
Vera Zasulich wants to prove that there “was nothing to do”, while her
own admission shows that therewassomething to do.

2) “Undergroundpolitical agitation was out of the question at that
time. Furthermore, it was neither the right, nor the duty of the districts
to take the initiative in such ‘actions’.”

VeraZasulich repeats the liquidators’ words without knowing the state
of affairs. That the period under discussion was a difficult one, more
difficult than before, there is no denying. The work of the Marxists,
however, isalways“difficult” but the thing that makes them
different from the liberals is that they do not declare what is difficult
to be impossible. The liberal calls difficult work impossible so as to
conceal his renunciation of it. The difficulty of the work compels the
Marxist to strive for greater solidarity among the best elements in order
to overcome the difficulties.

Theobjective fact that the work in the period under discussion waspossibleand was conducted is proved, for example, by the
elections to the Third and Fourth Dumas, if by nothing else. Surely Vera
Zasulich does not believe that supporters of the underground movement could
have been elected to the State Dumawithoutthe participation of
the underground.

3) “Therewas nothing to do in the underground groups, but outside
them there was a mass of essential social work to be done.” Clubs, various
associations,congresses, lectures, etc.

Suchis the argument put forward by all liquidators and repeated by
Vera Zasulich. Her article could simply be recommended for use in workers’
circles as an object-lesson on the misadventures of the liquidators!

Theunderground was necessary because, among other things, Marxist work
in clubs, associations, at congresses, etc., was connected with it.

Comparethis argument of mine with that of Vera Zasulich. Ask yourself,what groundshas Vera Zasulich for depicting work in legal
associations as something carried on“outside” the work of the underground groups? Why “outside”
and not “in close contact with”, why not “in the same direction”?

VeraZasulich has no factual grounds whatsoever, because everybody
knows that there was probably not a single legal association, etc., in
which members of the underground groups did not take part. The only grounds
Vera Zasulich has for her assertions is the subjective mood of the
liquidators. The liquidators did get the feeling that there was nothingfor themto do in the underground, thattheysympathised
only with work that wasoutsidethe underground, only if it wasoutsidethe ideological line of the underground. In other words,
Vera Zasulich’s “grounds” amount tojustificationof the
liquidators’ flight from the underground!

Pitifulgrounds indeed.

Wecannot, however, confine ourselves to pointing out the subjective
grounds for Vera Zasulich’s writings, the errors of fact and logic with
which literally every phrase of her article teems. We must seek the
objective grounds for the undoubted fact that the “districts lost their
members”, that there was a flight from the underground.

Wehave not far to look. It is well enough known that the bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois society of Russia at the time under discussion was carried
away to a very great extent by counter-revolutionary temper. It is well
enough known what profound antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat came to the surface in the days of freedom and engendered that
counter-revolutionary temper and also confusion, despondency and loss of
spirit among many vacillating friends of the proletariat.

Thisobjective relationship between classes in the period under
discussion explains fully enough why the bourgeoisie in general and the
liberal bourgeoisie in particular (for domination over the masses of the
people had been snatched out of their hands)were boundto hate
the underground, declare it worthless and “ineffective” (Vera Zasulich’s
expression), condemn and reject underground political agitation and also
the conduct of legal work in the spirit of the under ground, in accordance
with the slogans of theundergroundand in direct ideological and
organisational contact with it.

Thefirst to flee from the underground were the bourgeois intellectuals
who succumbed to the counter-revolutionary mood, those
“fellow-travellers” of the Social-Democratic working-class movement who,
like those in Europe, had been attracted by the liberating role played by
the proletariat (in Europe—by the plebs in general) in the bourgeois
revolution. It is a well-known fact what a mass of Marxists left the
underground after 1905 and found places for themselves in all sorts of
legal cosy corners for intellectuals.

Nomatter what subjective “good” intentions Vera Zasulich may have
had, her repetition of the arguments of the liquidators amounts objectively
to a rehash of the petty ideas of the counter-revolutionary liberals. The
liquidators, who are so loud in their talk of “independent action by the
workers”, etc., actually represent and defend the intellectuals who have
defected from the working-class movement and gone over to the side of the
bourgeoisie.

Theflight of some people from the underground could have been the
result of their fatigue and dispiritedness. Such individuals may only be
pitied; they should be helped because their dispiritedness will pass and
there will again appear an urge to get away from philistinism, away from
the liberals and the liberal-labour policy, to the working-class
underground. But when the fatigued and dispirited use journalism as their
platform and announce that their flight is not a manifestation of fatigue,
or weakness, or intellectual woolliness, but that it is to their credit,
and then put the blame on the “ineffective”, “worthless”, “moribund”,
etc., underground, these runaways then become disgusting renegades,
apostates. These runaways then become the worst of advisers for the
working-class movement and therefore its dangerous enemies.

Whenone finds the liquidators defending and lauding such elements and
at the same time coming out with vows and assurances that they, the
liquidators, stand for unity, one can only shrug one’s shoulders and ask
oneself whom they hope to deceive with this blissful idiocy and
hypocrisy. Is it not obvious that a working-class party cannot possibly
exist without a determined struggle against the lauding of defection from
the Party?

Theliquidators (with Vera Zasulich following them) enjoy calling these
apostates and runaways “the living forces of the working class”. But
these evasions of the liberal intellectuals have long been refuted by
indisputable facts on a country-wide scale. Of the deputies from the worker
curias 47 per cent were Bolsheviks in the Second Duma, 50 per cent in the
Third Duma and 67 per cent in the Fourth Duma. This is an irrefutable proof
that the workers left the liquidators in the period between 1907 and
1913. The emergence of the first working-class daily newspaper and the
events now to be observed in the trade unions add still further proofs to
this. If we glance at the objective facts and not at the empty, boasting
declarations of the liberal intellectuals, we shall see that the living
forces of the working class are those of the supporters of the underground,
the opponents of the liquidators.

AllVera Zasulich’s discourse on the past is, however, only the
beginning. There is something better to come. Her defence of renegation and
defection from the Party is only the introduction to her defence of the
destruction of the Party. It is these important sections of her article
that we shall now examine.

“Theunderground organisation,” we read in the article, “has always
been the weakest feature of Social-Democracy in Russia ...”
(“always”—neither more nor less). Bold historians, our
liquidators. “Always” means in 1882–93, before the mass working-class
movement under the organised leadership of the Party; it means in
1894–1904. And in the 1905–07 period?

“Buteven if it had been ten times better, it would not
   have survived the revolution and counter-revolution. In the history of
   Europe I cannot remember a single revolutionary organisation that, after
   living through a revolution, proved effective in the moment of reaction.”

“Buteven if it had been ten times better, it would not
   have survived the revolution and counter-revolution. In the history of
   Europe I cannot remember a single revolutionary organisation that, after
   living through a revolution, proved effective in the moment of reaction.”

Thisargument provides such a rich collection of “gems” that one does
not know where to begin sorting them out!

Zasulich“cannot remember” in European history the case she is
discussing. But can she remember “in the historyof Europe” a bourgeois revolution that took place when there were
independent working-class parties with hundreds of thousands, a million
members in neighbouring countries, and with capitalism highly developed and
having created in the country in question a united industrial proletariat
and a working-class movement on a national scale?

VeraZasulich cannot “remember” a case of this kind because there has
not been one “in the history of Europe”.  Mass political strikes did not
and could not play a decisive role in any bourgeois revolution in European
history before the twentieth century.

Andso what do we get? We get this. The liquidators refer to “the
history of Europe” as an example, where at the time of the bourgeois
revolutions,there were noindependent proletarian parties with
mass strikes; they cite that examplefor the purpose of renouncingthe tasks, or ofbelittling, clipping, curtailing, docking the
tasks to be done in a country in which the two above-mentioned basic
conditions (an independent proletarian party and mass strikes of a
political nature)were presentand still are present!

VeraZasulich fails to understand—and this failure to understand is
extremely typical of the liquidators—that she hasrepeated the idea
of the liberalProkopovich, using different words, for a different
reason and approaching the subject from a different angle. That liberal, at
the time when he, as an extreme Economist (1899), was breaking away from
the Social-Democrats, expressed the idea that “the political struggle is
for the liberals, the economic struggle for the workers”.

Allopportunists in the working-class movement of Russia from
1895 to 1913 have been drawn towards this idea and have lapsed into it. It
is in struggle against this idea that the Social-Democratic Party in Russia
has grown; only in struggle against this ideacouldit have
grown. The struggle against this idea, the liberation of the masses from
the influence of this idea is, in fact, the struggle for an independent
working-class movement in Russia.

Prokopovichexpressed the idea in its application to present tasks,
using the imperative or the desiderative mood.

VeraZasulich repeats the idea in the form of an allegedly-historical,
retrospective discourse, or a review of events.

Prokopovichspoke forthrightly, frankly, clearly and sharply—abandon
your idea of political independence, brother workers! Vera Zasulich, not
realising whither liquidationism was leading her, has reached the same
abyss by a zigzag route; the example of Europe also shows you, brother
workers, that you cannot expect to have an “effective” organisation of
your old testedtype, of the same type as your organisation in
1905. Since 1905 the liberals have abandoned empty dreams of an
“underground” and have created an “effective” organisation, an open
one, which, although not legalised by the June Third system, is tolerated
by it, retains its parliamentary group, its legal press and its local
committees, which are actually known to everybody. Your old organisation,
brother workers, is ineffective, and according to the lessons taught by
“the history of Europe”was bound to be, but we liquidators
promise you and offer you a new “open party” every day. What more do you
want? Be content with our, the liquidators’, promises, curse your old
organisation in stronger terms, spit upon it, deny it and remain for the
time being (until you get the “open party” we have promised)without
any organisation!

Thisis exactly the real meaning of Vera Zasulich’s liquidationist
arguments, the meaning determinednotby her will and mind, but by
the relation of the classes in Russia, the objective conditions of the
working-class movement. That is exactly what the liberals want. Vera
Zasulich is onlyechoingProkopovich!

Unlikelate eighteenth-century Europe and Europe in the fist half of
the nineteenth century Russia provides an example of a country in which the
old organisation has demonstrated its viability and efficiency. This
organisation has been preserved even in times of reaction despite the
defection of the liquidators and a host of the philistines. This
organisation, while preserving its basic type, has been able to adaptits formto the changing conditions, has been able to vary thatformto meet the requirements of the moment that marks “another
step in the transformation, into a bourgeois
monarchy”.[4]

Anobjective proof of this adaptation of the old organisation is to be
seen—if we take one of the simplest, most obvious proofs, a proof that is
most easily understood by theliberals—in the results of the elections to the Fourth Duma. Two-thirds
of the deputies elected by the worker curias proved to be members of the
old organisation, among them the six from the main industrial gubernias. In
those gubernias there are about a million factory workers. Everything
vital, all those politically conscious and influential among the genuinemasses, the proletarian masses, participated in the elections, and
in so doing changed theformof their old organisation, modifying
theconditionsof its activity but preserving its general line,
the ideological and political basis andcontentof its activity.

Ourposition is clear. It was delineated irrevocably in 1908. The
liquidators, however—and this is their misfortune—have no position as
long as they have noneworganisation. They can do nothing but
sigh over the bad past and dream of a better future.

“Organisationis essential to the Party,” writes Vera Zasulich. She
is not content even with the Stockholm (1906) decision, adopted at a time
when the Menshevikspredominated and were forcedto accept the
famous Clause One of the Rules.

Ifthat is true (and it most certainly is), Vera Zasulich is wrong and
she will have to renounce theMensheviks’ Stockholm
decision. Organisation is not only “essential to the Party”—that is
recognised by every liberal and every bourgeois who wishes to “use” the
working-class party for politics directed against the working class. The
Partyisthe sum-total of its organisations linked together in a
single whole. The Partyisthe organisation of the working class
divided into a long chain of all kinds of local and special, central and
general organisations.

Here,again, the liquidators find themselves without any position. In
1903, they put forward their idea of Party membership, according to which
not only those belonging to its organisations but those who were working
(outside the organisations) under their control were regarded as Party
members. Vera Zasulich recalls this episode, apparently deeming it
important.

“...asfar back as the Second Congress ten years ago,”
   she writes, “the Mensheviks felt that it was impossible to tack away the
   whole Party in the underground....”

“...asfar back as the Second Congress ten years ago,”
   she writes, “the Mensheviks felt that it was impossible to tack away the
   whole Party in the underground....”

Ifthe Mensheviks felt a revulsion against the under ground in 1903,
why was it thatin 1906, in the period of an immeasurably more
“open” Party, theythemselves, having a majority at the
Congress, reversed the Menshevik formulation they had adopted in 1903 andacceptedthe Bolshevik formulation? Vera Zasulich writes Party
history in such a way that one comes across an amazing, unbelievable
distortion of the facts at every step!

Itis an indisputable fact that at Stockholm in 1906 the Mensheviks
accepted the Bolshevik definition of the Party as the sum of its
organisations; if Vera Zasulich and her friends haveagainchanged
their views, if they now consider thattheir1906 decision was a
mistake, why do they not say so straight out? In general, Vera Zasulich
seems to regard this question as one of importance since she has raised it
herself and herself has recalled the year 1903!

Thereader can see that there is nothing more feeble and confused than
the liquidators’ views on the question of organisation. It is a complete
absence of views. It is a model of characterlessness and confusion. Vera
Zasulich exclaims crossly: “Organisational opportunism is a foolish
expression.” But “being cross” won’t help. Did not Cherevaninhimselfsay in a published statement that “organisational
anarchy” had been noted among the future liquidators at the meetings of
theMenshevikgroup in London in 1907. At that time, the most
prominent liquidators found them selves (and find themselves again today)
in the highly original situation of slaying liquidators.

“Organisationis essential to the Party,” writes Vera
   Zasulich. “But it will only be possible for the organisation to embrace
   the whole Party for any lengthy period and exist peacefully [!] in one and
   the same form and with one and the same set of rules [listen to this!] when
   Russian social life has achieved and consolidated [if it is ever
   consolidated in Russia] a system of legality and at last travels a smooth
   road, leaving behind the mountainous path that it has been following at an
   accelerating pace for a whole century, at times ascending, at times
   crashing into the abyss of reaction, whence, having recovered from injuries
   received, it starts scrambling uphill again....”

“Organisationis essential to the Party,” writes Vera
   Zasulich. “But it will only be possible for the organisation to embrace
   the whole Party for any lengthy period and exist peacefully [!] in one and
   the same form and with one and the same set of rules [listen to this!] when
   Russian social life has achieved and consolidated [if it is ever
   consolidated in Russia] a system of legality and at last travels a smooth
   road, leaving behind the mountainous path that it has been following at an
   accelerating pace for a whole century, at times ascending, at times
   crashing into the abyss of reaction, whence, having recovered from injuries
   received, it starts scrambling uphill again....”

Hereis an argument put forward by the liquidators that deserves a
prize as a model of confusion. Try and understand what the author is
getting at.

Achange in the “Rules”? Then for God’s sake, gentlemen, say what
changes in the Rules you are talking about! And don’t make fools of
yourselves, don’t try to prove “philosophically” that the Rules are not
something unchangeable.

Butalthough she speaks of “one and the same set of Rules”
(incidentally they were changed in
				 1912[1])

Vera Zasulich proposesnochanges at all.

Whatdoes she mean? She means that the Party will become an
organisation when the mountainous path comes to an end and Russia travels a
smooth road. That is an exceedingly respectable idea and it belongs to the
liberals andVekhi; until thesmooth roadis reached
everything is nasty and evil, the Party is not a party and politics are not
politics. On the “smooth road” everything will be “in order” and on the
“mountainous path” there is nothing but chaos.

Weread this argument long ago, put forward by the liberals. This
argument is understandable, natural and legitimate from the point of view
of the liberals’ hatred of the underground and the “mountainous
path”. The facts are distorted (for there have been a number oforganised partiesin the underground in Russia), but we realise
that the liberals’ hatred of the underground blinds them to the facts.

Butagain, what does Vera Zasulich mean? Apparently, according to her,
the organised party is impossible in Russia. Therefore? Indistinct ideas
and things left unsaid, the confusion of the issue by long, heavy, tortuous
periods, endless heating about the bush. The only thing one senses is that
the author is worming her way towards renunciation of all organisation. And
as she worms her way closer to this, Vera Zasulich speaks out—here is her
crowning idea:

“Wehave a broad section of workers who would have every
   right to join any socialist party in the West. All our forces are in this
   rapidly growing section of the workers, who lack only the opportunity of
   formally joining a p arty to found one, and no matter what we call this
   section we shall both think of it and speak of it as the party.”

“Wehave a broad section of workers who would have every
   right to join any socialist party in the West. All our forces are in this
   rapidly growing section of the workers, who lack only the opportunity of
   formally joining a p arty to found one, and no matter what we call this
   section we shall both think of it and speak of it as the party.”

Whenarguments concern the liquidation of the Party, therefore, we must
realise that by the wordpartythe liquidators meansomething
quite different. What do they mean by party?

Hereit is—“a broad section of workers ... who lack only [!] the
opportunity of formally joining a party to found one [!!]”.

Incomparable!The party consists of those “who lack the opportunity of
formally joining it”. The party is those who remain outside the party.

Truly,Vera Zasulich has gathered some wonderful gems for us by saying
frankly what all the liquidators are wandering abouton the verge
of.

Thereare about a million Party members in Germany to day. The
Social-Democrats there receive about 4,250,000 votes and there are about
15,000,000 proletarians. Here is a simple and vivid example that will
untangle what the liquidators have tangled. One million—that is theparty, one million in the party organisations; 4,250,000 is the
“broad section”. It is actually much broader because women are
disfranchised, as are many workers who do not possess the residential
qualification, age qualification, etc., etc.

The“broad section” consists almost entirely of Social-Democrats and
without it the party would be powerless. When any action is taken, this
broad section expands to two or three times that size because on such
occasions a mass of those who are not Social-Democrats follow the party.

Surelythis is clear? It really is a little awkward to have to point
out something so elementary!

Inwhat way does Germany differ from Russia? Certainly not because in
Russia there isnodifference between the “party” and the
“broad section”! To understand this let us first look at France. There we
see (approximately—more accurate figures would onlystrengthenmy argument):

Andin Russia? Party—150,000 in 1907 (calculated and verified at the
London Congress). Today the number is not known, probably much less, 30,000
or 50,000, we cannot say definitely.

Our“broad section” is 300,000–500,000 if we add up the number of
those voting for the Social-Democrats. Lastly, proletarians—probably
about 20,000,000. I repeat that these are approximate figures, butany
otherfigures that anybody might arrive at through closer calculation
would only add strength to my argument.

Myargument is that in all countries, everywhere and always, there
exists,in additionto the party, a “broad section” of peopleclose to the partyand the huge mass of theclassthat
founds the party, causes it to emerge and nurtures it. By not understanding
this simple and obvious point, the liquidators are repeating the error of
the Economists of 1895–1901; the Economists simply could not understand
the difference between the “party” and the “class”.

Theparty is the politically conscious, advanced section of the class,
it is its vanguard. The strength of that vanguard is ten times, a hundred
times, more than a hundred times, greater than its numbers.

Isthat possible? Can the strength of hundreds be greater than the
strength of thousands?

Itcan be, and is,when the hundreds are organised.

Organisationincreases strength tenfold. God knows this is no new
verity. But it is not our fault if for the benefit of Vera Zasulich and the
liquidators we have to begin at the beginning.

Thepolitical consciousness of the advanced contingent is,
incidentally, manifested in its ability to organise. By organising it
achievesunity of willand this united will of an advanced
thousand, hundred thousand, millionbe comesthe will of the
class. The intermediary between theparty and the class is the “broad section” (broader than the party but
narrower than the class), the section that votes Social-Democrat, the
section that helps, sympathises, etc.

Therelationshipof the party to the class differs in
different countries, depending on historical and other conditions. In
Germany, for example, about one-fifteenth of the class is organised in the
party; in France about a hundred-and-fortieth part. In Germany there are
four or five Social-Democrats of the “broad section” to every Party
member; in France there are fourteen. In France there has never actually
been a party 100,000 strong—and this in conditions of “open”
organisation and political liberty.

Anyreasonable person will understand that there are historical
conditions, objective causes, which made it possible to organise
one-fifteenth of the class in the party in Germany, but which make it more
difficult in France, andstill more difficultin Russia.

Whatwould one think of the Frenchman who declared that “our party is
a narrow circle and not a party; you cannot tuck the party away in an
organisation; the party is the broad section,all forcesare in
it, etc.”? You would probably express surprise at the fact that this
Frenchman was not in a mental hospital.

Andhere in Russia we are expected to take people seriously who feel,
see and know that our path isstill mountainous, that is, the
conditions for organisation aremore difficult, and nevertheless
declare that they “will think and speak of the broad section [the
unorganised!] as the party”. These people are confused runaways from the
Party, confused Social-Democratsoutside the Partyorclose to
the Partywho have not withstood the pressure of the liberal ideas of
decline, despondency and renunciation.

“Forthe underground to be a useful force,” writes Vera
   Zasulich in the conclusion to her excellent article, “the underground,
   even if it alone is called the party, must display an attitude towards the
   worker Social-Democrats [i.e., towards the broad section in which Zasulich
   sees “all forces”, and of which she declared: “we shall think of it and
   speak of it as the party”] similar to that of party officials to the
   party.”

“Forthe underground to be a useful force,” writes Vera
   Zasulich in the conclusion to her excellent article, “the underground,
   even if it alone is called the party, must display an attitude towards the
   worker Social-Democrats [i.e., towards the broad section in which Zasulich
   sees “all forces”, and of which she declared: “we shall think of it and
   speak of it as the party”] similar to that of party officials to the
   party.”

Thinkcarefully over this statement, the gem of gems in an article so
rich in gems. First Zasulich knows very well what is meant by apartyin present-day Russia. But dozens of liquidator writers are
continually assuring the public that they do not know it, with the result
that disputes on the liquidation, of thePartyare so unbelievably
confused by these gentry. Let readers who are interested in the fate of the
working-class movement and oppose vulgar, commonplace liquidators turn to
Vera Zasulich’s article and gain from it the answer to the question that
has been and is still being obscured—what is a party?

Secondly,examine Vera Zasulich’s conclusion. The underground’s,
attitude to the broad section should be that of party officials to the
party, she tells us. May we ask what is the essence of the attitude of the
officials of any association to that association? Obviously it is that the
official does not carry out his own will (or that of a group or circle),
but the will of the association.

Howis the will of a broad section of several hundred thousands, or
several million, to be determined?It is absolutely impossible to
determine the wilt of a broad section that is not organised in an
association—even a child would understand that. It is Vera
Zasulich’s misfortune, and that of the other liquidators, that they have
taken a position on the inclined plane of organisational opportunism and
are constantly sliding down into the swamp of the worst anarchism.

Foranarchism is precisely what it is, in the fullest and most accurate
meaning of the word, when Vera Zasulich declares that the liquidatorswill think and speakof the broad section as the party, and that
the underground should display the attitude towards it that it would to a
higher organisation, to a supreme arbiter on the question of “officials”,
etc., although she herself admits that the “broad section lacks only the
opportunity of formally joining a party” and therefore “lacks the
opportunity offorming a party”.

Whenan appeal is made to broad sections or to the massesagainstthe organisation and at the same time the impossibility of
organising those sections or massesis admitted, that is pure
anarchism. The anarchists constitute one of the most harmful elements of
the working-class movement becausethey are always shouting about the mass of the oppressed classes (or even
about the oppressed masses in general), always ruining the good name of any
socialist organisation but are themselves unable to createanyother organisation as an alternative.

TheMarxists have a fundamentally different view of the relation of the
unorganised (and unorganisable for a lengthy period, sometimes decades)
masses to the party, to organisation. It is to enable the mass of adefinite classto learn to understand its own interests and its
position, to learn to conduct its own policy, that there must be an
organisation of the advanced elements of the class, immediately and at all
costs, even though at first these elements constitute only a tiny fraction
of the class. To do service to the masses and expresstheirinterests, having correctly conceived those interests, the advanced
contingent, the organisation, must carry on all its activity among the
masses, drawing from the masses all the best forces without any exception,
at every step Verifying carefully and objectively whether contact with the
masses is being maintained and whether it is a live contact. In this way,
andonlyin this way, does the advanced contingent train and
enlighten the masses, expressingtheirinterests, teaching them
organisation and directingallthe activities of the masses along
the path of conscious class politics.

Ifthe political activity of the masses as a whole, when directly or
indirectly drawn into elections, or participating in them, should result inallthe elected representatives of the workers being supporters of
the underground and its political line, supporters of the Party, we have an
objective factprovingthe viability of our contact with the
masses, proving the right of that organisation to be and to call it self
thesolerepresentative of the masses, andsolevehicle
for the expression of the class interests of the masses.Everypolitically conscious worker, or rather, every group of workers,was
ableto participate in the elections and direct them one way or the
other; and if the result is that the organisation that is ridiculed, cursed
and treated with disdain by the liquidators has beenable to lead the
masses, that means that the attitude of our Party to the masses is
correct in principle, it is the Marxist attitude.

Thetheory of the “broad section. . . who lackonlythe opportunity of formally joining a party to found one” is an anarchist
theory. The working class in Russia cannot consolidate and develop its
movement if it does not struggle with the greatest determination against
this theory, which corrupts the masses and destroys the very concept of
organisation, the very principle of organisation.

Thetheory of the “broad section”to replacethe party is an
attempt to justify an extremely high-handed attitude towards andmockeryof the mass working-class movement (furthermore, the
mockers never fail to speak of the “masses” in their every phrase and to
use “mass” freely as an adjective in all its cases). Everyone realises
that the liquidators are using this theory to make it appear thatthey, their circle of intellectuals, represent and express the
will of the “broad section”. What, they would say, does the “narrow”
party mean to us when we represent the “broad section”! What does an
underground mean to us, an underground that carries with it a million
workers to the polls, when we represent the broad section numbering,
perhaps, millions and tens of millions!

Theobjective facts—the elections to the Fourth Duma, the appearance
of workers’ newspapers and the collections made on their behalf, the
Metalworkers’ Union in St. Petersburg, the shop assistants’
congress[5]—serve to show clearly that the liquidators are a group of
intellectuals that have fallen away from the working class. But the
“theory of the broad section” enables the liquidators to get round all
objective facts and fills their hearts with pride in their unacknowledged
greatness....

VeraZasulich’s article is such a collection of oddities from the point
of view of logic and of the ABC of Marxism that the reader naturally asks
himself—is it possible that there is no other meaning to all these
meaningless phrases? Our review would be incomplete if we did not point out
thatthere is a point of viewfrom which the article is quite
comprehensible, logical and correct. That is the point of view of the
split.

Thehistory of the working-class movement is full of examples of
unsuccessful, useless and even harmful parties. Let us suppose for a moment
that our Party is one of them. In that case it is harmful and criminal to
tolerate its existence, and still more so to tolerate its
representatives. It is then obligatory to strugglefor the
destructionof that, party and its replacement by a new party.

Fromthe point of view of a profound conviction of the harmfulness of
the underground, such statements as “it is not known whether it (the
Party) helped or hindered”, whether it now helps or hinders, are natural
and understandable. We shall justify and
				praise[3]those who leave it and put it down to the “ineffectiveness” of the old
party. We shall appeal tonon-party people againstthat old party
so that they will join the new party.

VeraZasulich did not express this point of view of the split in
full. Perhaps this fact is subjectively important and noteworthy to the
author. Objectively, however, it is of little importance. If a writer says
A, B, C, and thenallthe letters of the alphabet except the last,
it is a safe bet that 999 readers out of 1,000 will add (aloud or to them
selves) the last letter. The liquidators are all in this ridiculous
position; they produce a whole collection of arguments for a split and then
either say nothing at all or say that they “favour unity”.

Aproposof Vera Zasulich’s article and of a dozen similar articles by
L. S., Dan, Levitsky, Yezhov, Potresov and Martov we have only one
answer—the first condition for unity is the absolute condemnation of the
“theory of the broad section in place of the party”, the condemnation of
all acts against the underground, the condemnation of Vera Zasulich’s
article and the definite discontinuance of all such sallies. The party
cannot be “united” without struggling against those who question the
necessity for its existence.

Fromthe point of view of a split Vera Zasulich’s article is logical
and correct. If the liquidators succeed in foundinga new party and if that new party turns out better than the old, Vera
Zasulich’s article (and all the liquidators’ literature) will be justified
historically. It would be foolish sentimentality to deny the founders of a
better, genuine, truly working-class party the rightto destroythe old, in effective, useless party. If the liquidators do not establish
any new party at all, if they do not create any new working-class
organisation, then all their literature and Vera Zasulich’s article will
remain as a monument to the con fusion of those who dropped out of the
Party, of those characterless intellectuals who were carried away by the
counter-revolutionary stream of despondency, disbelief, and philistinism
and went plodding along behind the liberals.

Onething or the other. There is no middle way. There is nothing here
to “reconcile”; you cannot “slightly bury” the old party and “slightly
create” a new one.

Thespecific nature of the time through which Russia is now living is
demonstrated, among other things, by the fact that a relatively small Party
nucleus which was able to hold out during the storm and to remain in
existence despite the breaking of individual organisational ties here and
there, a nucleus that has ensured for itself an uncommonly strong influence
among the overwhelming mass of the workers (not as compared with
present-day Europe, of course, but with the Europe of 1849–59), that this
nucleus is surrounded by a multitude of anti-Party, non-Party, extra-Party
and near-Party Social-Democrats and near-Social-Democrats.

Andthat is precisely how matters should stand in a country with the
Mont Blanc of the German Social-Democratic Party next to it, while inside
that country ... inside even the liberals do not see any other road except
the “mountainous path”, Messrs. Struve & Co. having for more than ten
years trained hundreds and thousands of petty-bourgeois intellectuals,
wrapping up their petty liberal ideas in almost Marxist words.

TakeMr. Prokopovich. A notable figure in journalism and in public
activities in Russia. In essence, undoubtedly, a liberal. There is,
however, reason to fear that he regards himself as a Social-Democrat—an
anti-Party Social-Democrat. Take Mr. Makhnovets (Akimov). A liberal of a
moremelancholy temperament and with a more strongly ex pressed love for the
workers. He no doubt considers himself a Social-Democrat—a non-Party
Social-Democrat. Take the writers inKievskaya Mysl,Nasha
Zarya,Luch, etc. They form a whole collection of extra-Party
and near-Party Social-Democrats. Some of them are engaged mainly in
dreaming about the foundation of a new, open party, but have not yet made a
final decision on the question of whether they will disgrace themselves too
much if they set about fulfilling this plan of genius
“prematurely”. Others specialise in solemnly declaring that they
do not want to liquidate anything, that they are for unity and in complete
agreement with ... the German Social-Democrats.

Takethe Social-Democratic Duma group. One of its most prominent
figures. Chkheidze, whom Nekrasov seems to have had prophetically in mind
when he wrote:

Butat times avoids an issue,That is painful, hard to
   solve.[6]

Butat times avoids an issue,That is painful, hard to
   solve.[6]

Theyears 1911 and 1912 were the most difficult and painful period for
the Social-Democrats in the epoch of the Third and the beginning of the
Fourth Duma. The working-class press—liquidators’ and
anti-liquidators’—took shape. Chkheidze “avoided the issue”. He did not
go with either one or the other. He was a near-Party Social-Democrat. He
seemed to be waiting and watching; on the one hand, there was no party but
the old one, and on the other hand, it might happen that “they” would
bury the party a little bit.... You read his speeches and quite often
applaud a sally against the Rights that is often witty and stinging, his
heat ed and astringent words, his defence of the old traditions, and at the
same time you have to hold your nose when you open a liquidators’ newspaper
that thunders against “crazes”, waves tradition carelessly aside and
teaches the workers disdain for organisation—all apparently with the
approval of Chkheidze, whose name is an ornament to the list of
contributors. You come across an article by An accompanied by a sharp
criticism of him from theLucheditors and cannot help but
wonder—have not our poor Chkheidze and our kindly An suffered a
tragi-comic defeat in their attempt to cast off the yoke of Dan....

Thereare people who, in the name of the great principle of proletarian
unity, advise the Party to come to an agreement with one of the groups of
near-Party, almost-Social-Democrats, that wants to “avoid”, or is
wavering on, the question of whether to bury or to strengthen the old
organisation. It can well be understood that these people are themselves
wavering or have a very poor acquaintance with the real state of affairs. A
party that wants to exist cannot allow the slightest wavering on the
question of its existence or any agreement with those who may bury
it. There is no end to those who want to act as intermediaries in such an
agreement, but they are all people, who, to use an old, expression, are
burning their oil in vain and wasting their time.

P.B.Axelrod’s concluding article in No. 13 ofZhivaya Zhizn(July 25, 1913) headed “Then and Now” provided an amazingly vivid
confirmation of our words. The real essence of this well-padded article is
not, of course, in its amusing boosting of the liquidators’ August
Conference, but in the resurrection of the labour congress question. It
goes without saying that Axelrod prefers to say nothing about his bitter
and painful experience with the idea of a labour congress in 1906 and
1907—why rake up the past? Nor does Axelrod mention the specific
conditions of thepresent day, when it appears possible to hold
labour congresses of a special character, as it were, and for special
reasons (a shop-assistants’ congress today, perhaps an insurance or trade
union congress tomorrow, etc.). Axelrod is probably not pleased with the
experience of the shop-assistants’ congress, at which the majority (as the
liquidators have been forced to admit inZhivaya Zhizn) wasagainstthe liquidators.

Axelroddoes not say anything about what has been and what is. He
prefers to let his imagination run wild on the future “thaw”—luckily we
cannot know anything about its concrete conditions! He toys with the idea
of convening “a Social-Democratic labour congress if not of all Russia,
then one of all Russians”—which is then called exactly that, a congress
of all Russians.

Thusthere are two changes to the former brilliant plan; first, it is
not merely a labour congress, but a Social-Democratic labour congress. That
is progress. Let us congratulate Axelrod on having taken a step forward in
six years. Let us congratulate him if he has become convinced of the harm
caused by fantastic plans to “unite” with the Left Narodniks. Secondly,
he replaces “all-Russia congress” by “congress of all Russians”. That
signifies rejection of complete unity with workers ofnon-Russiannationality in Russia (Axelrod regards the collapse among them of the idea
of a labour congress as being final!). That is two steps backward. That is
the hallowing of separatism in the working-class movement.

Butthis is still not the best part. Why was Axelrod dreaming of a
labour congress? This is why:

“Thelabour congress will complete the liquidatory
   process that has been going on during the past few years, the liquidation
   of the old party regime that grew u on the outdated historical basis of the
   feudal state and the hierarchical socio-political regime and at the same
   time will mark the beginning of a completely new epoch in the historical
   life of Russian Social-Democrats, the epoch of development on exactly the
   same lines as the Social-Democratic parties in the West.”

“Thelabour congress will complete the liquidatory
   process that has been going on during the past few years, the liquidation
   of the old party regime that grew u on the outdated historical basis of the
   feudal state and the hierarchical socio-political regime and at the same
   time will mark the beginning of a completely new epoch in the historical
   life of Russian Social-Democrats, the epoch of development on exactly the
   same lines as the Social-Democratic parties in the West.”

Everybodyknows that “exactly the same lines” are the lines of alegalparty. Speaking without equivocation, this means that the
liquidators need the labour congress to “complete the
liquidation” of the old party and to found anew,legalparty.

Such,in brief, is the idea behind Axelrod’s long disquisitions.

Hereyou have the last word in near-Party Social-Democracy! For the
members of the party to work in the party and strengthen it is an old,
outdated idea that Axelrod has banished to the archives. We are not
liquidating anything, that is libel, we only “stand aside” and shout for
all to hear about the “completion of the liquidation of the Party”. We
vow and swear that tomorrow we shall be excellent members of the future
legal party.

Thesesweet near-Party Social-Democrats of 1913 are very much like
those liberals of 1903 who assured us that they were proper
Social-Democrats and would certainlybecome members of the Social-Democratic Party—when it became legal, of
course.

Wedo not for a moment doubt that there will be a period of political
liberty in Russia and that we shall have a legal Social-Democratic
Party. Probably some of those near-Party Social-Democrats of today will
become members of it.

Andso—until we meet again in the ranks of the future, legal party,
our future comrades! In the meantime, excuse us, we are not going the same
way, because as yet you, near-Party Social-Democrats, are carrying on
liberal and not Marxist work.

[1]Seepresent edition, Vol. 17, p. 482.—Ed.

[2]Theexact figure given at the last Congress in Brest (1913) was
68,903.[7]—Lenin

[3]Inpassing. Thisdefenceof the renegades is implicit in Vera
Zasulich’s phrase “the broad section only lack the opportunity of formally
joining a party to found one”. There are thousands of facts that prove the
opposite. By speaking of “lack ofopportunity”, Vera Zasulich is
actually defending philistinism, or worse.  —Lenin

[4]Thisdescription of the evolution of tsarism in the period of the
Stolypin reaction is quoted from a resolution of the Fifth (All Russian)
Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., held in 1908.

[7]TheBrest(Tenth)Congress of the French
Socialist Party—was held in the town of Brest, March 23-25, 1913.

[5]Thisrefers to the Fourth Congress of Commercial and Industrial
Employees held in Moscow, June 29-July 3 (July 12-16), 1913. The Congress
was attended by 378 delegates. The Bolsheviks, who were supported by almost
half the delegates, also had the support of the Left Narodnik section of
the Congress, which gave them the majority. The liquidators were
represented by an insignificant group. Detailed reports of the Congress
were published inPravda. The Congress was closed by order of the
Minister of the Interior.

[6]Leninis here quoting, with some words changed, from Nekrasov’s poem
“A Man of the Forties”:But at times avoids an issue,That is urgent, that alarms....